FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Whatever happened to well-read, theologically-knowledgeable heretics?

It's easy enough for us Catholics, in hindsight, to bash Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and other heretics, but it's also easy to forget that those men, for all of their flaws and theological errors, were well-learned and even sophisticated theological thinkers. They were all men of the Church initially, and it's not entirely fair to say that they wished to undermine Church teaching or destroy Church authority; on the contrary, it can be reasonably argued that—to varying degrees—they really were standing up for what they thought were logical theological positions. And, just as importantly, they engaged in theological debate.

The modern heretic, all in all, is a different animal. If he has any interest in theology, it's usually a negative interest; he wishes it would go away. It is an annoying fly in the ointment of his grand scheme to remake the Church in his likeness and image. He usually embraces heresy not because he makes a mistake while pondering theological nuances but because he has accepted the dominant cultural mores and social attitudes and is now intent on remolding Catholicism to fit them, rather than scrutinizing them in the light of Catholic teaching.

The ancient heretics eventually ran up against Church authority and, alas, made bad choices. Modern heretics make bad choices and then try to run over Church authority. "Minds no longer object to the Church," wrote Abp. Fulton Sheen, "because of the way they think, but because of the way they live. They no longer have difficulty with the Creed, but with her Commandments ... Briefly, the heresy of our day is not the heresy of thought; it is the heresy of action."

Maureen Dowd is totally correct in arguing that the “tradition” that
only men can be priests can and should be changed. There is no
theological reason for a men-only priesthood.

Lay and clerical Catholics should loudly demand a new Vatican Council in
which they should play a role. This council should address the
ordination of women and other issues that could infuse a new spirit of
the teachings of Christ into the church.

Fred Rotondaro
Chairman, Catholics in Alliance
for the Common Good
Washington, July 18, 2010

If Mr. Rotondaro is serious and sincere when he states, "There is no
theological reason for a men-only priesthood," I can only conclude that he is either woefully ignorant or completely deceived. And no one should be taking their directives on Catholic teaching and theology from someone who is ignorant or deceived. (I shouldn't have to write that, but it is probably necessary to state the obvious.) And if he is intent on being misleading, well, that would seem to follow from the company he keeps and leads.

There are plenty of theological reasons given by Catholic theologians for a male-only priesthood. I'll mention just one theologian and one book at the moment. Mr. Rotondaro, please meet Fr. Manfred Hauke, Ph.D., author of several books, including Die Problematik um das Frauenpriestertum vor dem Hintergrund der Schöpfungs- und Erlösungsordnung (1986), published in English by Ignatius Press as
Women In the Priesthood: A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption (1988; trans. by David Kipp). It is 497 pages long, it is copiously footnoted, and it was praised by Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, who said, "Undoubtedly the definitive work available on this important topic." It is, to put it mildly, an impressive worth of theology.

Interestingly enough, Fr. Hauke, in the Introduction, immediately addresses the fact that those Catholics (and non-Catholics) who insist that women be ordained as Catholic priests do so without much, if any, concern for theological arguments. Instead, "often, authors content themselves with cursory allusions to changed sociocultural conditions, to which the Church must supposedly adapt" (p. 21). He then provides a number of illustrative quotes, including one from the Alpha Dog of Modern Celebrity Catholic Heretics, Hans Küng, who said back in 1977: "The resolution of the problem depends on the general sociological conditions at the time and place concerned [that is, first-century Israel]. It is fully and wholly a question of the existing cultural circumstances" (p. 22).

Much could be said about this approach, but it is proof that "sciences" such as sociology and psychology not only drive the engine of modernity, they have a solid grip on the steering wheel of cars driven by those who are "CatholicBut!"—that is, always insisting they are Catholic, but immediately adding the qualifier, "but...!" They will read Maureen Dowd with approval but cannot stand to read serious works of theology that support Church teaching. For some reason, I doubt that Arius, Nestorius, or Pelagius would think much of Dowd's rants and ragings; they were too learned and too serious for that.

I always tell people who defend the idea that the Church can ordain women that they should they should go to Germany and try to convince Fr. Manfred Hauke that his Ph.D. was awarded in error. Needless to say, this is perhaps not a pastorally effective approach.

In my observations, people do not want 497 page explanations of anything that might interfere with their prejudices. What they want is to lead a utilitarian life based on principles that fit on bumper stickers, starting with the premise that the human genitals are toys.

Might I suggest that yesterday's theologically-minded heretic is today's devout Protestant or Evangelical? Today's heretic is unable to grasp the core of a theological argument, thus cannot engage the theological debate.

You make very valid points in your article, and it makes me think about a book I recently read called "The Judas Syndrome: Seven Ancient Heresies Return to Betray Christ Anew." The book was excellent and explains in great depth how ancient heresies are alive today in our modern culture. Thanks for your article.

I am what certain Roman Catholics would call a heretic, though of course I don't think myself to be a heretic. I consider their position over-defined and restrained; there is much more diversity in belief that is allowed before one strays into heresy. The Roman institution is often obsessed with over-definition, a result, I think, of a loss of temporal power and a very human desire (abused even by all good earthly fathers at times) to over-control. I often picture Mother Church like the doting new mom trying to wrap her kids up in inflatable tubing before they attempt to "swim" (and so killing any real chance at developing the skill).

I have read some of the Church Fathers in Greek and Latin (especially St. Ambrose), the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, many of the works of the Protestant reformers, and many of the volumes from the Anglo-Catholic Library (and the tracts and writings of Cardinal Newman). I am admittedly not as well-read as even the most uneducated author published by the prestigious St. Ignatius press, but I'm not a total slouch.

There are still a few of us out there who read and think. We tend to be drowned out by the shouts of the mad few who are, admittedly, far more deserving of the name "heretic".

Just to be clear, I am using the formal, canonical definition of heresy: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Canon #751, CCL). Which does not apply to those born Protestant, or to non-Catholics who disagree with the Catholic Church.

Kelly: I take that what you mean is that it only applies to Catholics who have "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt" when it comes to "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith"? :-)

Carl, you are right. So many people pick a position and then develop an argument for it, and a shallow argument at that. At least when someone like Paul R. above makes a statement or an argument, there's something to TALK about. But "the Church hates women" isn't an argument, it's a diatribe.